Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 135786 -

G.R. No. 135786 - JOSE P. TAMBUNTING, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTANISLAWA PANER AND HON. JUDGE LEAH S. DOMINGO.

Cited Laws

RA 150
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the above-named defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises located at 490 Aurora Blvd., cor. Sgt. Catolos, Cubao, Quezon City and you likewise make a return of this writ of execution to this Court within sixty (60 ) days from the date of receipt hereof.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the above-named defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises located at 490 Aurora Blvd., cor. Sgt. Catolos, Cubao, Quezon City and you likewise make a return of this writ of execution to this Court within sixty (60 ) days from the date of receipt hereof. [7] Petitioner questioned the same in the RTC which the latter dismissed upon subsequent Manifestation and Motion, dated March 9, 1993, filed by petitioner alleging that he had vacated the subject premises. Objecting to the dismissal of the case, on the ground that she intends to pursue her counterclaim against petitioner, respondent assailed the dismissal with the CA which affirmed the dismissal order. Unperturbed, respondent brought the CA decision to this Court docketed as G.R. No. 120913. The CA decision was affirmed by the Court, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as private respondents comment thereon, the Court further Resolved to DISMISS the petition without prejudice to his taking appropriate recourse re compulsory counterclaim for moral damages and attorneys fees. [8] and which became final and executory on January 3, 1996. [9] Respondent then filed a Motion for Alias Writ of Execution with the MTC, alleging, as follows: . . . 7. That, however, during the time that the case was pending and before Defendant finally vacated the premises on March 9, 1993 in the absence of any specific date in his Manifestation and Motion of March 9, 1993, as to when he vacated the premises, it is safe to presume that he left the same on March 9, 1993, the date he filed said Manifestation and Motion (Annex A) which totals P 259,033.00, itemized as follows: Rentals from Jan. 18, 1992 to February 18, 1993 (13 mos. x P 19,000.00) = P 247,000.00 Rentals from Feb. 18, 1963 to March 9, 1993 (19 days x P 633.33) = P 12,033.27 P 259,033.00 plus cost of suit [10] and praying that an alias writ of execution be issued by the court for the amounts therein indicated. Over and above the opposition of petitioner, the MTC issued its Order dated March 11, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Alias Writ of Execution is hereby GRANTED. Let an Alias Writ of Execution be issued for the satisfaction and execution of the judgment herein rendered. SO ORDERED.